Importance of Supreme Court Nominees’ Political Ideology
Unlike the other branches of government, the Constitution is largely silent on judicial qualifications and the nomination process of judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior" and are confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Thus, tradition largely dictates judicial nominations and the nomination processes that follow. The need for a judicial appointment can occur when a sitting justice dies in office, choses to retire because of old age of disability reasons. Clare Cushman in Courtwatchers provides examples of other justices in the past resigning to pursue other political ambitions.
During the nineteenth century, some justices …show more content…
In 1965, President Johnson appointed his personal attorney Abe Fortas as an associate justice to the Court. The account given in Courtwatchers describes President Johnson “strong-arming” Fortas into accepting the nomination for an associate justice seat. Although, Fortas had reservations about accepting the nomination, he continued to provide President Johnson with legal advice, counseled him on political issues, and wrote some of his speeches. Luckily, though no president since has placed a corny on the Supreme Court. Before President Johnson’s crony nomination of Abe Fortas, President Truman’s made four appointments to the Court, all of which were political, professional, and personal friends. Of Truman’s four appointment, two joined the majority in the 1952 case Youngstown Sheet and Steel Co. v. Sawyer holding that the president’s seizure of steel mills was an “unconstitutional overreach of presidential power.” After this ruling President Truman voiced his opinion “packing the Supreme Court [with allies] simply can’t be done…I’ve tried it and it won’t work.”
To prevent the president from nominating “unfit characters” whether they be unqualified or cronies, Epstein and Segal in “A Backdrop to Judicial Appointments” explain Alexander Hamilton belief that constitutional requirement of advice and consent needed from …show more content…
Epstein and Segal provide evidence that the Senate has mainly interpreted advice and consent to mean that it “must approve presidential nominees by a majority vote.” In the past two centuries, the Senate has only failed to confirm 27 of the 147 nominees to the Supreme Court and only voted against 9 nominations to the President’s cabinet. Additionally, when looking at nominations on the lower federal levels, Senators have not approved about 20 percent (69 of 350) U.S. Courts of Appeals nominees and over 10 percent (131 of 1,248) of U.S. District Courts nominees between 1977 and 2004. These figures allude to the discretion that the Senate uses when considering presidential judicial
Unlike the other branches of government, the Constitution is largely silent on judicial qualifications and the nomination process of judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior" and are confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Thus, tradition largely dictates judicial nominations and the nomination processes that follow. The need for a judicial appointment can occur when a sitting justice dies in office, choses to retire because of old age of disability reasons. Clare Cushman in Courtwatchers provides examples of other justices in the past resigning to pursue other political ambitions.
During the nineteenth century, some justices …show more content…
In 1965, President Johnson appointed his personal attorney Abe Fortas as an associate justice to the Court. The account given in Courtwatchers describes President Johnson “strong-arming” Fortas into accepting the nomination for an associate justice seat. Although, Fortas had reservations about accepting the nomination, he continued to provide President Johnson with legal advice, counseled him on political issues, and wrote some of his speeches. Luckily, though no president since has placed a corny on the Supreme Court. Before President Johnson’s crony nomination of Abe Fortas, President Truman’s made four appointments to the Court, all of which were political, professional, and personal friends. Of Truman’s four appointment, two joined the majority in the 1952 case Youngstown Sheet and Steel Co. v. Sawyer holding that the president’s seizure of steel mills was an “unconstitutional overreach of presidential power.” After this ruling President Truman voiced his opinion “packing the Supreme Court [with allies] simply can’t be done…I’ve tried it and it won’t work.”
To prevent the president from nominating “unfit characters” whether they be unqualified or cronies, Epstein and Segal in “A Backdrop to Judicial Appointments” explain Alexander Hamilton belief that constitutional requirement of advice and consent needed from …show more content…
Epstein and Segal provide evidence that the Senate has mainly interpreted advice and consent to mean that it “must approve presidential nominees by a majority vote.” In the past two centuries, the Senate has only failed to confirm 27 of the 147 nominees to the Supreme Court and only voted against 9 nominations to the President’s cabinet. Additionally, when looking at nominations on the lower federal levels, Senators have not approved about 20 percent (69 of 350) U.S. Courts of Appeals nominees and over 10 percent (131 of 1,248) of U.S. District Courts nominees between 1977 and 2004. These figures allude to the discretion that the Senate uses when considering presidential judicial